SPA”) and the SCJ Constitutional Chamber maintain that the provisional and temporary judges can be freely appointed and removed. Indeed, when deciding an administrative appeal for annulment in 2000, the SPA found that “the right to stability […] is reserved to judges who enter the judicial career by the path established in the Constitution and developed by law; that is, by competitive examinations, [and that] the said right refers to the post that the official occupies, from which he or she cannot be removed or suspended, except for the reasons and according to the procedures that have been established; in other words, following compliance with the applicable disciplinary regime.”75 In addition, the SPA stated that: Those holding a post for which they have not competed lack the right being examined and, consequently, may be removed from the post in question under the same conditions that it was obtained; that is, without the administrative authority being obliged to justify the removal according to the provisions of the disciplinary regime, which are applicable - we insist – only to career judges; that is, those judges who obtain a post following a competitive examination.76 68. This SPA case law has been reiterated in other judgments, including the one handed down in the 2004 ruling on the appeal for annulment filed by Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón (infra paras. 87 and 88), and in another judgment delivered in 2006,77 which reiterated the precedent established for the alleged victim. The Constitutional Chamber also upheld this case law78 on finding that: Provisional judges […] occupy judicial posts, but they do not enjoy the status of career judges, because they were not hired as the result of a competitive examination in which, following different examinations (written, practical and oral), they were evaluated. The Judicial Commission appointed them, delegated to do so by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice, owing to the need to fill judicial posts while the said process of restructuring and reorganization of the Judiciary was completed. […] Evidently, there is a difference between career judges and provisional judges: the former acquire their permanence after passing the examination; in contrast, provisional judges are appointed in a discretionary manner, following an analysis of their credentials. Career judges enjoy stability and can only be sanctioned or removed from their posts if it is proved that, during a public oral hearing with guarantees of defense […] they committed the disciplinary violations established in the Organic Law of the Council of the Judicature and the Law on the Judicial Career. This is not the case with provisional judges, who may be removed from their posts in the same way as 75 Cf. judgment No. 02221 of the Administrative and Political Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 28, 2000 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XII, attachment 20, folio 5814). 76 Cf. judgment No. 02221 of the Administrative and Political Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 75, folio 5814. 77 Judgment No. 1225 of the Administrative and Political Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 17, 2006. This judgment emphasized that a judge’s stability is obtained through the competitive examination process and that this stability is not enjoyed by provisional judges (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XII, attachment 21, folios 5820 to 5826). 78 In two 2005 judgments, of December 13 and 16, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice found that, “[I]ndeed, as already indicated by the Political and Administrative Chamber, provisional judges who enter the Judiciary to fill a vacancy do not enjoy the stability enshrined in the Constitution, because they are officials whose entry has not been confirmed by a competitive examination. Thus, they can be removed from their posts without the need for an administrative procedure before their removal.” Judgments Nos. 5111 and 5116 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 13 and 16, 2005 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XII, attachments 23 and 24, folios 5852, 5862 and 5863). Also in its judgment No. 1413 of July 10, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber indicated that it “ha[d already] ruled, with regard to posts held on a temporary basis, that they do not confer on officials - be they judicial or administrative a permanent status and, consequently, they do not enjoy the rights inherent in the career, such as, stability in the post. Hence, they may very well be suspended or removed from the post in keeping with the powers of the corresponding judicial or administrative authority.” Judgment No. 1413 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 10, 2007 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XII, attachment 22, folio 5836). 21